Delhi High Court
Sh Sunny Sachdeva vs Acp North Rti Cell And Anr on 22 July, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 638/2024 & C.M.No.40574/2024
SH SUNNY SACHDEVA .....Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
versus
ACP NORTH RTI CELL AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC, GNCTD
(Through VC)
% Date of Decision: 22nd July, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated
12th March, 2024 and 29th May, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. (C) No.10436/2022 whereby the Appellant's writ petition and review
petition seeking imposition of penalty on the concerned officials under
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act") for furnishing
incorrect replies to his RTI applications were dismissed on the grounds that:
(i) true and correct information sought by the Appellant had already been
provided to him during the pendency of the writ petition; and (ii) appropriate
action has been taken inasmuch as departmental action has been initiated
against three erring officials under the applicable service rules.
2. The Appellant, who appears in person, states that the Respondents not
only provided wrong and incorrect information, but also caused inordinate
Signing Date:23.07.2024
18:57:31
delay of three years in providing correct information/reply. He further states
that the alleged inadvertent error of changing diary number and giving
wrong information was traced by the Respondents only after indulgence of
this Court, prior to which, the Respondents adamantly stated that correct
information had already been provided.
3. He states that the learned Single Judge has erroneously observed that
the amended replies to the queries have been accepted by the
Appellant/Petitioner as true and correct and to his satisfaction. He further
states that despite filing the review petition, the learned Single has dismissed
the same on the ground that what the Court had recorded was what had
transpired during the hearing on 12th March, 2024.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant's previous appeal being
LPA 308/2024 challenging the very same impugned order dated 12th March,
2024 was dismissed vide order dated 16th April, 2024 after giving liberty to
file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge. It was further
observed that "as the respondents have already initiated departmental
action against the erring officials, it is not open to the appellant at this stage
to urge that the respondents have failed to take any action against the erring
officials and/or no action has been taken till date. The appellant shall have
to wait for the departmental proceedings to conclude before raising such a
grievance."
5. The Appellant's contention that the amended replies to the queries
had not been accepted 'to his satisfaction' has been dealt with by the learned
Single Judge in the impugned order dated 29th May, 2024 as the learned
Single Judge has given a finding that what transpired during the hearing had
been recorded. Since High Courts are Court of Record, we are bound by
Signing Date:23.07.2024
18:57:31
what the learned Single Judge has recorded as to what transpired in Court on
12th March, 2024.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the formation of opinion under Section
20(2) of the RTI Act is in the exercise of supervisory powers of CIC and not
in the exercise of the adjudicatory powers. This Court is also of the view that
the information seeker has no locus standi in penalty proceedings under
Section 20 of the RTI Act. This Court is further of the view that the law laid
down in Anand Bhushan vs. R.A. Haritash, LPA No. 777/2010, decided on
29th March, 2012 is applicable to proceedings under both Section 20(1) and
Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that
the CIC was well entitled in its discretion not to direct imposition of
monetary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, especially, when the
information sought by the Appellant had been directed to be provided to
him.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, present appeal along with the
application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 22, 2024
KA
Signing Date:23.07.2024
18:57:31
